Zoning Board of Appeals

Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 26, 2022 at 6:30 P.M. Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, contact the Division of Development Services, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA or refer to video recordings available online at www.LTC.org. Members Present: Member Pech, Member Callahan, Member McCarthy, Member Briere, Member Procope, Member Njoroge Members Absent: Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner The following represents the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the 9/26/2022 meeting. This meeting was held in the City Council chambers. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, attendees had the ability to participate via Zoom as permitted by the Governor’s 3/10/2020 emergency order to suspend certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law. Vice-Chair Pech called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Continued Business ZBA-2022-42 Petition Type: Special Permit and Variance Applicant: Vinfen Corporation Property Located at: 41 Gorham Street (a/k/a 89 Appleton Street), 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Article 12.3 (j) and Section 6.1 Petition: Vinfen Corporation has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Special Permit and Variance approval to add a licensed health care establishment to the existing building. The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed-Use (UMU) zoning district. The proposal requires Special Permit approval from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals per Article 12.3 (j), Variance approval from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 6.1 for relief from the off- street parking requirement, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: George Theodorou, the applicant’s representative, spoke briefly. He said they do not need the Variance for parking anymore and only need the Special Permit, and are thus withdrawing the request for a Variance. Sophie Santaella (COO), Lauren Falls (VP of Behavioral Services), Joe Texeira, and Sid Silveira, all of Vinfen, appeared to discuss the project. G. Theodorou spoke about the project’s applicability to the Master Plan, including the important role that mental health services play in a community. He said this organization will help solve problems in the community. G. Theodorou said there will be no significant construction but that they are working with the stormwater management team to retain runoff on site. He said there was also a traffic study done. Sophie Santaella, COO of Vinfen, spoke. She noted that Vinfen has been in Lowell providing services for 15 years. She said that mental health needs have increased during COVID, and that Vinfen can help fill that niche. Lauren Falls, VP of Behavioral Health, summarized their services briefly. She said Vinfen is partnering with Wayside (for children’s care) and Advocates (for mobile care). Vinfen’s goal is to lower emergency department usage. She said there will be short term beds on site (2-5 days). L. Falls said this will allow some of their services to be offered 24/7. Sid Silveira gave a brief overview of the floor plans and traffic study. The traffic study indicated that the site is well served by public transit with ample parking. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Raymond Weiker, attorney, representing Washington Savings Bank. WSB is a direct abutter to the proposed use. R. Weiker said that the bank has been at its current site for 99 years. WSB is concerned about the safety of its employees and customers. R. Weiker said that Vinfen has not stated everything that’s within its contracts. He stated that they did not inform the Board that they will be running a residential treatment center, or that they will be treating patients from the surrounding suburbs of Lowell. Additionally, R. Weiker said the treatment is totally voluntary and that patients can leave the facility at any time. He also stated that the contract incentivizes the volume of patients over quality care. R. Weiker pointed out that this site is the gateway into the JAM area and the Hamilton Canal Innovation District. He stated that this project could damage the City’s goals for these areas. R. Weicker said that none of the involved parties are experienced in running residential facilities. He also noted that there would not be permanent security employees. He also stated that Vinfen said they will not accept responsibility for any damage done by their clients. R. Weiker summarized his statement that because the use does not meet the Master Plan, it should not be granted a Special Permit. He suggested that, if the Special Permit is granted, that the site has a Head of Corporate Security and that they hire Vinfen employees that meet security staff standards similar to those at LGH. He also suggested that the Special Permit be subject to an annual review. R. Weiker stated that Vinfen was deliberately misleading in their application. G. Theodorou spoke in response. He said that R. Weiker was stereotyping the patients as derelicts to the community and that his remarks were extremely offensive. G. Theodorou said that there will be fourteen beds (seven adult, and seven adolescent), not thirty as R. Weiker stated. Discussion: S. Santaella of Vinfen spoke in response to R. Weicker. She said it is not a drug treatment facility, and that all three parties have substantial experience in these fields. She stated that it is a health care facility. S. Santaella said the bank was upset that their security guard would not be armed, which she believed is not effective care in a behavioral health center. She said anyone who is a threat to themselves or others would immediately be brought to the hospital. She stressed that they are a non-profit. S. Santaella said they are not replacing the Emergency Department at LGH, they are only supplementing. G. Procope said he believed there would be strict requirements because the program is contracted by the state. He stated that they are not trying to create a prison-type setting. He said that the proposal has met the zoning requirements. G. Procope said that the City has issues with mental health, and that this proposal would help fill those needs. He said that, from a zoning perspective, he does not see issues and that he is inclined to support. G. Theodorou, in response to a general inquiry about security, stated that there will be a room in the site that has a feed for all security cameras on site. M. Briere said he did not appreciate the manner in which Attorney Weicker went about his statement of opposition. He stated that these services are desperately needed by the City, and that they are fortunate to have found an ideal location for their facility. M. Briere said he looks favorably upon the petition. D. McCarthy asked for clarification on Vinfen’s experience, and how the patients will be accessing the building. G. Theodorou said that the sallyport will be for people arriving by ambulance, and that the front door on Gorham Street will be used by patients entering voluntarily. L. Fells said that they have done this work on the Cape, and that Advocates has done residential work for twenty years. D. McCarthy asked for clarification on who is using the front door. L. Fells said it is people arriving for an evaluation (via their own car, public transit, or being dropped off), and stressed that no one there is being sectioned. The sallyport is for people who are already working with EMS or hospital services. D. McCarthy said he supports the work of Vinfen, and that the Board received letters of support from LCHC and LGH. S. Callahan said that this is a need in the community and that Vinfen does a very good job about what they do, but that he does have questions about security. He asked for clarification regarding the entrances, which G. Theodorou clarified. S. Callahan asked where the room for the security guard to monitor the cameras will be. G. Theodorou said it will be on the first floor to the left of the entrance. He expressed concern about the separation of the adult and youth side. J. Texeira stated that those doors will be card activated so that only staff can go through there. S. Callahan said he would want to condition security measures as part of approval. G. Theodorou said he would have to submit those as part of their Building Permit application. S. Callahan asked them to elaborate on the Engineering comments. G. Theodorou said they want them to repair the granite sidewalks, which they are amenable to. S. Callahan said he is supportive as long as a security plan is included. R. Njoroge said he leans in favor of this position and that Vinfen has demonstrated that they have done this work for a long time. R. Njoroge asked for a summary of the services. G. Theodorou explained. V. Pech said that he appreciates the work of Vinfen and this is a service needed in the City. V. Pech said he felt some of the opposition comments were generalizations and not accurate. He stated  that this model works and that advanced security is not necessarily critical, as he has seen in his own work experience. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, seconded by S. Callahan, to approve the Special Permit with the following conditions: ● The applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan subject to approval by the City ● The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to upgrade the existing granite sidewalks in front of the building ● The applicant shall submit updated floor plans denoting the designated security area and areas that require card access The vote was unanimous (6-0). D. McCarthy motioned, seconded by M. Briere, to approve the applicant’s request to withdraw their Variance application without prejudice. The vote was unanimous (6-0). II. New Business ZBA-2022-43 Petition Type: Special Permit and Variance Applicant: Eighty Nine Fifth Ave LLC Property Located at: 114-122 Merrimack Street 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Article 12.1(d) and Section 6.1 Petition: Eighty Nine Fifth Ave LLC has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Special Permit and Variance approval to convert the second floor commercial space at 114-122 Merrimack Street into two (2) residential units. The property is located in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoning district and requires a Special Permit pursuant to Section 12.1(d) for the use, Variance approval pursuant to Section 6.1 for parking, and for any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance On Behalf: V. Pech stated that there was no Request for Permit sign, and that it needs to be continued until the October 13 meeting. J. Geary said they will put it back up tomorrow. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: None Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, seconded by G. Procope, to continue the application to the October 13 meeting. The vote was unanimous (6-0). ZBA-2022-46 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: House of Hope, Inc. Property Located at: 35 Varnum Avenue 01854 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Sections 5.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, and 6.1 Petition: House of Hope, Inc. has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to construct an 8-unit apartment building at 35 Varnum Avenue. The property is located in the Traditional Neighborhood Single Family (TSF) zoning district. The project requires Zoning Board approval of variances for minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum usable open space per dwelling unit, maximum stories, maximum height requirement, and maximum front yard setback under Section 5.1, minimum off street parking spaces under Section 6.1, the construction of more than one primary residential dwelling structure on a lot under Section 5.2.2, relief from the landscaped open space requirement under Section 5.3.1, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Deb Chausse, the Executive Director of House of Hope and resident of 10 Dayton Street, summarized the application and the role House of Hope plays in the community. She stressed their experience. She said that additional team members are here to discuss the proposed project. Jacob Taylor, legal counsel for the applicant, spoke. He said that the unused space at the rear of 35 Varnum Avenue is a prime location for this site. He summarized the application briefly. C. Boehmer did a presentation on the site and the architecture for the building. The current lot runs deep lengthwise, and the new building will be located behind the existing building. There will be open green space left on the lot for families with children. House of Hope is also planning to install landscaping to screen the new driveway and the dumpster required for the new building. The backyard will have a small gate onto Clinton Ave in case emergency first responders need to access the building from that area. The building itself will be 6 two-bedroom apartments and 2 three-bedroom apartments. In Support None In Opposition Tracy Genest of 20 Clinton Ave expressed opposition. She supports House of Hope and the work they do and said they are great neighbors. She is just concerned about having a driveway running parallel to her property, as well as potential noise and traffic issues. Patricia Hanlon (8 Clinton Ave), said it looks like “Hampton Beach in the summer time” with the parking situation. The original fence was put up to stop the teens from the current shelter from crossing through the back of the property and noise complaints. Mr. Ramos (14 Clinton Avenue), spoke in opposition. He said they do not need more parking or people walking through their street. He also said the proposed dumpster is way too close to 21 Clinton, which could also make the rodent problem worse. Kathy Slater (16 Genest Ave) asked how they could put an apartment building in a single family zone. She said kids were having parties in the back of the property. Luis Santos (21 Clinton), expressed concern with the dumpster, as it would directly abutt his property. Ms. Lacerte, the daughter of the owner of 17 Clinton, spoke on behalf of her father. She said House of Hope does great work but they do not want a pathway through the backyard to Clinton Ave. She also said she would like to meet with House of Hope and get more information. D. Chausse clarified that the gate would not be open for cars. Residents said their concern was for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Ramos (14 Clinton Ave) spoke again that they're not even concerned about the residents there, but just having the gate open in general. Discussion: G. Procope said it is important for organizations to meet with the neighbors. He said that due to the amount of opposition there may be some valid concerns from the neighborhood. He is inclined to continue the matter so that House of Hope can meet with the neighbors. M. Briere expressed concern that this may not be the best location for the facility due to the amount of relief. He also said further dialogue between House of Hope and the residents before their final vote could be helpful. D. McCarthy expressed his gratitude towards House of Hope. He also said he would like more information on stories and the building height and that a continuance could be effective. In particular, he said they can discuss with neighbors where to move the dumpster. S. Callahan echoed his colleague’s opinions about HOH. He also said he has serious concerns about this project’s viability. He expressed concern about the size of the building, and that putting another structure on the lot does not particularly meet the intent of zoning. J. Taylor said that they are open to meeting with neighbors and putting additional detail on the plans. R. Njoroge said he agrees with S. Callahan’s comments. V. Pech said that he has some concerns and that a continuance would be best. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, with G. Procope seconding the motion, to continue the matter to the October 13 meeting. The vote was unanimous (6-0). ZBA-2022-47 Petition Type: Variances Applicant: Zirlene Santos Correa Property Located at: 534 Wentworth Avenue 01852 Applicable Zoning Bylaws: Section 6.1 Petition: Zirlene Santos Correa has applied to the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals seeking Variance approval to extend the existing driveway to create an additional parking space at 534 Wentworth Avenue. The subject property is located in the Suburban Single-Family (SSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Variance approval from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 6.1 for relief from the minimum off-street parking setback from the lot line, minimum off-street parking setback from building requirements, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Andrew McCaul, Engineer for the project, summarized the necessary relief. He said the relief is not substantial and that it will be similar to many of the driveway layouts in the neighborhood. In Support: None In Opposition: None Discussion: G. Procope said he does not have a problem with the request. He asked the applicant if he had addressed the Engineers comments about removing parking on the right side of the house to eliminate the need for a Variance. A. McCaul said that it would fit on the right side of the house, dimensionally, but it would be out of character for the neighborhood as it would create a driveway squeezed in between two single family homes. M. Briere agreed with the point about squeezing the driveways in. He stated his main concern is that if the City wants to put a sidewalk in, the driveway would be in the public ROW. A. McCaul said the existing parking space already has that problem, but that he doesn’t think it would be a significant challenge. M. Briere agreed. D. McCarthy did not have significant concerns. S. Callahan asked if the shrubbery was still in front of the house. A. McCaul said yes. S. Callahan said he would hate to take landscaping away. The applicant is proposing to move the shrubbery to the back of the home. R. Njoroge said he does not have a problem. He asked if they will need a curb cut permit. A. McCaul said yes. V. Pech echoed his colleagues' concerns and noted that the relief is minimal.  Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, with S. Callahan seconding, to approve the Variance requests. The vote was unanimous (6-0). III. Other Business Minor Modification: 105 Longmeadow Drive 01852 Mehida Gonzalez has requested a minor modification for her project at 105 Longmeadow Drive. She is requesting to include a full basement in the plans. On Behalf: Ms. Gonzalez’ daughter spoke on her behalf. She asked for a full basement in the plans, instead of the concrete slab, in order to have additional storage space. In Opposition: None Discussion: There were no questions from the Board. They noted that this was a very minor change. Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, and was seconded by M. Briere, to approve the minor modification. The vote was unanimous (6-0). Minor Modification: 74-76 Boisvert Street and 253 West Sixth Street 01850 Attorney John Geary, representing ZR Development Group, has requested a minor modification for their project at 74-76 Boisvert Street and 253 West Sixth Street. The applicant is requesting to remove five (5) parking spaces along Beaulieu Street that were in the original approved plans. On Behalf J. Geary, applicant’s representative, briefly summarized the minor modification. The new plans would remove the 5 spaces along Beaulieu Street. He stressed that the PB approved the Special permit and the Site Plan, without the above mentioned 5 spaces. The project now needs relief for 9 parking spaces. He mentioned that the Transportation Engineer has expressed support. In Support: None In Opposition: Maureen Kelleher, 37 Unsworth Street, said that the narrative says they received relief for the width of the parking spaces. She says they did not receive this Special Permit and did not ask for it. She said that the spaces need to be 9 feet wide. She says this is not a minor modification, and that the loss of the 5 parking spaces would be a substantial change.1.5 spaces is not enough for each unit. She said many cities require 1 guest space for every 3 units. Overcrowding will be detrimental for the neighborhood. Regina Faticanti, 169 Bunker Hill Avenue said that more units equals more cars. She has sent a communication to the Massachusetts AG regarding this. She said they did not receive a written summary of the changes for the minor modification. R. Faticanti said people’s lives will drastically change. Sandy MacNamara, 78 Beaulieu Street, spoke in opposition. She said that there is no bus stop in the area, it is on Hildreth Street. She said people want to park in front of their homes. She informed the Board that the City may be forced to pay tens of millions of dollars to fix combined sewer overflow issues. Larry Harding, 88 Boisvert Street, spoke in opposition. He said the additional utility support for this building could contribute to this problem. He said police are getting called because people are fighting over parking. S. MacNamara added that most of the streets there are one-ways. She said residents will only be able to access the site through the one-way on Boisvert. Marisol Pallazo, 220 West Sixth Street, spoke. She is very concerned about the traffic and the issues with on-street parking. Ellen Wright, of 92 Boisvert Street, is afraid of traffic issues from the project. Her son was struck by a car on his bike. She said the news about the combined sewer overflow is creating additional utility issues and can become a public health issue. Mike Mousseau, of 163 Ennel Street, spoke in opposition. He said he still has issues getting into his driveway even since St. Louis closed. He said they don’t have enough parking in the neighborhood. Discussion: V. Pech asked if G. Procope is recused, and he confirmed. M. Briere said he spoke in opposition previously and remains opposed. D. McCarthy asked about the potential need for a Special Permit. J. Geary said the notice says “any other relief requested” and thus encompasses the Special Permit. D. McCarthy asked if the parking space size is appropriate. M. O’Hara (engineer for the project) said the City lets residential uses have smaller spaces because cars are not frequently coming and going. He also said that CSO’s are a problem, but that this project is removing net impervious surface and less rain will be entering the sewer system as a result. He said it is extremely costly to do a separate pipe for sewage. D. McCarthy asked for clarification on the minor modification. J. Geary summarized the reduction in parking spaces. D. McCarthy asked if they conditioned their approval with an admin review. J. Geary said it was part of the PB conditions and that they would be amenable to including it here. S. Callahan said the Site Plan requested by the Board specifically asked for reduced parking space sizes. In their decision it specifically mentioned the reduced size of the spaces. S. Callahan clarified that if a tenant parked on Beaulieu Street, there is no access to the site, and they would have to walk around the block. This would make it unappealing. S. Callahan asked for clarification on what would happen if the minor modification was denied and if there were competing plans. R. Njoroge asked what constitutes a “minor modification”. P. Cutrumbes said he would defer to Law. J. Geary said that in terms of the Site Plan he would say it is a minor modification. R. Njoroge said that the administrative review makes him feel more comfortable. V. Pech said he is not supportive that this is a minor modification. J. Geary said that if they are confused about whether it is a minor modification, they can continue the matter and ask for an opinion from the Law department. V. Pech was amenable. S. Callahan said he thought the Law Dept deferred to them. P. Cutrumbes said that seemed familiar but it may still be beneficial to the Board, and that a Special Permit would be from the Planning Board as the project went through Site Plan Review Motion: D. McCarthy motioned, with S. Callahan seconding, to continue the application to the 10/24 ZBA meeting. The vote was unanimous (6-0). Pre-Application Hearing: 270 Christian Street 01850 Henry Donaldson has requested a pre-application hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Donaldson intends to subdivide the existing lot at 270 Christian Street to build a new single family home. The property is located in the Traditional Single Family zoning district. This project would require Variance approvals for the new lot. On Behalf: Henry Donaldson summarized the proposal briefly. He is seeking to subdivide the two properties that he owns. Discussion: G. Procope asked if the second home would be on the Kerry Street or Christian Street side. H. Donaldson said the Kerry Street side. G. Procope asked if it would be a ranch like several of the neighborhood. H. Donaldson said hopefully a small colonial. M. Briere said he would pursue it if he was the applicant. D. McCarthy said he would like to see an application that requires as little relief as possible. He appreciated that the applicant was already thinking in this manner. S. Callahan concurred with D. McCarthy. R. Njoroge said he feels like the requested relief is minimal but would need to see the plans. V. Pech said it seemed reasonable, but that he would want to see the support of the neighbors or abutters. Election of New Officers S. Callahan made a motion to nominate V. Pech as Chairman, D. McCarthy seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). V. Pech nominated S. Callahan for Vice-Chair, D. McCarthy seconded. The vote was unanimous (6- 0). S. Callahan nominated D. McCarthy as clerk, V. Pech seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). Minutes for Approval: 9/12/2022 Meeting Minutes D. McCarthy if outstanding administrative reviews could be added as a standing agenda item. D. McCarthy motioned to accept the minutes, and S. Callahan seconded. The vote was unanimous. S. Callahan reminded the public that the next meeting will be on a Thursday, October 13. D. McCarthy motioned to adjourn the meeting, with G. Procope seconding. The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 PM.